Honesty and humility are key.
I once heard a fairly well-known Bible teacher say, 'When I finally see Matthew, I'm going to ask him why he didn't give us the other five explanations for the kingdom parables.'
This statement aptly reflects our analytical (and wrong) thinking. We assume that Matthew should have overtly revealed the meanings and we blame him. What we don't stop and ask is the key. Instead of being angry with him - or thinking him a buffoon who carelessly left out something so important - why aren't we asking with passion and a curiousity as to why? - he chose to withhold the explanations that he surely received from his Rabbi.
Now I commend this modern-day teacher for realizing and admitting that these enigmas need explanations. This is far more than virtually all the commentators will admit. His admission reveals he understands well that the parables were indeed intentionally cryptic. But where he stopped short was acknowledging that Matthew's actions may well have been quite purposeful.
Virtually all have assumed that the Gospel of Matthew was written as a very straightforward, informational text. Most think that Matthew's first priority was to let us know about this Godman named Jesus, about what He was like, and about what He did; and we think arrogantly that he wrote it for us. Modern Christians read the book of Matthew as a biography first and foremost. And this is a huge mistake.
First of all, it was written to Hebrews in a teaching setting and not to us as we've supposed. Eusebius - an early church historian - tells us that Matthew wrote his gospel for a group of Jews he was teaching in Jerusalem and that this First Gospel was written down as compensation for his absence as he was leaving to teach the Gentiles. In other words, it was not written as a biography, but as a teaching aid, a manual, that was to be used to disciple his students, and as the Historian records, was put down in the Hebrew manner (this is ultra important).
If we view Matthew as a biography we must explain away/or ignore the obvious omission of the other five explanations for the Mysteries of the Kingdom, for biographies are about the impartation of information so therefore we must believe the author has given us all he has; he's given us all we need. But when we rightly understand Matthew as a teaching manual (in accordance with the testimony of Eusebius), then we can look at the First Gospel in a totally different light. Were these cryptic sayings - called mysteries - designed to engage, to intrigue, those who heard them to seek to know about real kingdom living?
Because the they've viewed Matthew through the eyes of a biography, the commentators have missed something of immesurable value. The explanations happen to be available; available from Matthew, himself. One just has to know that they exist, and where and how to find them.
Comments